The photos you're referring to appeared much later than the originals and there is no proof that they're from the same source. The author even says
"Recently, someone else sent in another photo....of the very same type of 'ship'!" Notice he says "same type", that just means they're similar.
They do look very similar but that's not proof for me. It could be a stage prop copied from the original or if I want to be paranoid, they're a
deliberate disinfo attempt at distracting us from the truth. Either way, I still believe the originals to be genuine ufo.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
My personal favorites are still the McMinnville photos. Here we are 60 years later an yet they still remain undebunked. Even the Condon Report was
forced to admit that what occurred that day is unexplainable in mundane terms.

Unfortunatly I think a thrown truck hub would look just like that so..who knows still could be fake to close to the camera.

The photos you're referring to appeared much later than the originals and there is no proof that they're from the same source. The author even says
"Recently, someone else sent in another photo....of the very same type of 'ship'!" Notice he says "same type", that just means they're similar.
They do look very similar but that's not proof for me. It could be a stage prop copied from the original or if I want to be paranoid, they're a
deliberate disinfo attempt at distracting us from the truth. Either way, I still believe the originals to be genuine ufo.

Good. Please post high res scans of the "originals" - I'll show you the same lighting truss in every one of them. Graham Bethune was shopping these
around for a long time - claimed to have been a ship from Venus. Imagine his surprise when I told him I'd been in the presence of the "ship" when I
worked at a production company in Baltimore - and that I knew without question it was a stage prop utilizing chaser lights, white lexan and a lower
object we called a "jet-eye" which produces the small blue rays below in some of the photos in that set.

In simplest terms, this is not anything but a stage prop with identifiable components. But it is interesting to see human reaction when a belief
system is shown to be based on ill facts and refusal of all critical thought.

The photos you're referring to appeared much later than the originals and there is no proof that they're from the same source. The author even says
"Recently, someone else sent in another photo....of the very same type of 'ship'!" Notice he says "same type", that just means they're similar.
They do look very similar but that's not proof for me. It could be a stage prop copied from the original or if I want to be paranoid, they're a
deliberate disinfo attempt at distracting us from the truth. Either way, I still believe the originals to be genuine ufo.

Good. Please post high res scans of the "originals" - I'll show you the same lighting truss in every one of them.

Seriously? That's the best you have, and yet you're betting the farm on this? That's pretty hysterical. C'mon dude, let's get real.

Note the blue "disco ball" below your saucer on that site. It's one of these:

The sphere is devoid of light within a center equator - that's how you change the bulbs. Just like your flying saucer - which shows the same
equatorial blank spot. The notion that anyone purports that these are photos of anything related to this enigmatic subject is absurd.

That you would argue the point based upon compressed jpgs of such poor resolution is even more absurd.

You want examples of light-play like that? Go to a club where they run hazers before the band co mes on. Go get a Pink Floyd concert on DVD...you'll
see plenty of it, and stuff that makes this look amateurish considering how old these are.

As a final note, consider that there's haze in the photos and fog machine effects - that's why the beams are so well defined - that's what a hazer
is for. There's not a thing unusual about the way the light is behaving in those photos whatsoever. I worked in that business and was a partner in
a production event and talent booking company for the better part of a decade.

Other intelligences are not coming here to start rave clubs or discos. Sorry to rain on your parade - not my intent - but you're really barking up the
wrong tree here. When I saw the pictures Graham Bethune was showing that night I nearly fell off my seat. I always thought Bethune was a pretty good
witness to his sighting during military service.

That night changed my mind, as Graham went on about Venusians and all sort of contactee claims ala Adamski - I remember telling him about this prop in
his pics and he stated something like "I only know what the man told me" - I told him "Well your buddy is full of sh*t, that's a stage prop I've laid
my own eyes on." He didn't seem to care, as he was selling copies of the photos for ten bucks a set.

Ok. After serious consideration and a bit of extra research I admit they are all most probably a stage prop.
This is very disappointing. Thanks for the info.
At least I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

get the Billy Meier books. I purchased the coffee table one - I think it was $100 or something. It has the clearest and the best photographs of UFOs.
there is some great information about Plaidians as well in that book.

After reading all Billy Meier books and all the information that I have researched on him I believe the photos to be real.

Originally posted by subby
Ok. After serious consideration and a bit of extra research I admit they are all most probably a stage prop.
This is very disappointing. Thanks for the info.
At least I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

Everyone makes bad calls - I'm no exception to that, that's for damned sure. You constantly have to fight the desire to believe, and constantly
fight off the notion of banking on anything for the belief system. This thing will not conform to what you want it to be. It won't conform period.
That's the problem.

Originally posted by subby
At least I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

That's an admirable quality! Kudos!

Guess I have to get a new avatar

Done. I'm pretty certain the Belgium Triangle hasn't been debunked

I haven't seen it debunked, however I would have to ask, is that
object formed by 3 straight lines, or 4? So I'm not sure if it's really a triangle since the image shows 4 straight lines, see 'em?:

Maybe the 4th line has something to do with a cockpit or canopy or combined with the viewing angle?

As jritzmann suggested, there are some who suspect it may have a manmade origin and even think it's the TR-3B. I don't believe the TR-3B stories but
I wouldn't rule out the manmade origin theory, although I agree with those who say it makes no sense to test secret craft over populated areas when
there are other alternatives.

The part of the Belgian flap story that I think has been debunked is the claim that radar confirmed visual sightings, that claim is simply not true.
But there were some very interesting sightings NOT confirmed by radar.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.